Ravi S.Dhavan, J. - (1.) THIS is the second time that the court had cautioned the Central Government particularly the Army Headquarters that the manner in which the representation is to be disposed of upon the grievance of an officer is objective; it is to be fortified with reasons on record. The petitioner had to come to the court for second time in writ petition no. 8545 of 1980; Lt. Gol. Ashok Kumar v. Union of India. The court interfered by reposing its faith that the representation filed by the petitioner must be decided by the authorities, who are otherwise obliged to decide the statutory and nonstatutory complaints. The statutory complaints are decided by the Central Government and non-statutory complaints are decided by the Chief of the Army Staff.
(2.) THE earlier complaint dated 19-4-1988 had received a cryptic disposal with the expression 'not accepted'. THE Division Bench in writ petition No 8545 of 1989 by its order dated April 7, 1989 expressed displeasure in the manner in which the complaint of Lt. Col. Ashok Kumar had been processed and considered, and finding that no reasoned order had been passed the court even went to the extent of observing :- "Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, has stated that a statutory complaint can be filed before the Central Government However, we may observe that we are not happy with the attitude adopted by the Army Chief in dealing with the representations made by the petitioner. In our order dated November I, 1988, it was implicit that the Army Head Quarters will look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders by giving reasons. THE only order passed is 'not accepted'. This phrase, in our opinion, prima facie discloses a non-application of mind. THE petitioner, if so advised may now prefer a proper representation before the Central Government. If this is done, the officer concerned of the Central Government will dispose of the representations objecively and while doing so it shall give reasons in support of its orders. As already indicated, since the petitioner is due to retire in June 1989, it is desirable that the representation should be decided expeditiously. We accordingly direct that the officer concerned will dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a month from the date of the receipt of the same along with a certified copy of this order that we are passing today." What exactly were the implications of the order passed by the Bench of their Lordships the Honourable S K. Dhaon and the Honourable D. P. S. Chauhan, JJ., on April 7, ly89 : (1) The court expressed its displeasure in the manner in which the representations of Lt Col. Ashok Kumar were dealt with and disposed of by the Army; (2) the court expected the authority dealing with the representation to decide by disclosing reasons on record; (3) the court, noticing that the representation was disposed of with a cryptic observation 'not accepted', declared that this style of dealing with representation only discloses non-application of mind; (4) the court permitted a representation to be filed before the Central Government, this was on the preliminary objection of the Standing Counsel that 'a statutory complaint can be, filed before the Central Government'; (5) but the court cautioned the authority concerned that it will decide the representation objectively "and" give reasons in support of its orders"; and (6) as the petitioner was to retire in June 1989, the court desired that the representation be decided "expeditiously" and the officer concerned was directed to decide it within one month of a certified copy of the order being placed before him. Then there was another aspect. The petitioner, while arguing his matter at the Bar on April 7, 1989 made a request to the Court for directions to be granted leave from service so that he could file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. As appeal to a higher court is a right of a litigant, the High Court directed the officer concerned to consider the leave application when made and act on it within time so that the petitioner could "ventilate his grievance before a higher forum".
(3.) THESE are the aspects, otherwise on record which engaged the attention of this Court when the petitioner arguing in person, and Mr. N. B. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the two opposite parties were heard. The opposite parties as arrayed are (1) Mr. Naresh Chandra, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and (2) Brigadier P. K. Gupta (retired). It may be set on record that the counter affidavit of opposite party no 1, Mr Naresh Chandra, as Secretary, Ministry of Defence though affirmed on March 6, 1990 was served on the petitioner on May 10, 1990 and filed into court the same day, more than two months after it was affirmed, and the affidavit of opposite party no. 2. Brigadier P. K Gupta (retired) was affirmed on April 11, 1990, and served on the petitioner, oq May 10, 1990 and filed on that day, about a month after affirmation. Also, there was much reluctance in arguing the case on behalf of the two opposite parties. Then the affidavit of Brigadier P. K,. Gupta, does not even disclose to the court the address of the deoonent. The law requires parties before the court to reveal their addresses. The age and address verification reads thus : "Affidavit of Brigadier P. K. Gupta (Retired) about 55 years, son of late Sri Kamta Prasad at present living a retired life". The only request which was made on every occasion when the matter was placed before the court, was for an adjournment In fact the request for adjournment was passed with much vehemence. The prayer for adjournment, was opposed with equal vehemance. When the hearing began on May 9, 1990, it was only then that the counter affidavits of the opposite parties were filed the next day. These are matters of record. Regard being had to all these circumstances, the court did not consider it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings without a plausible cause.;